Chapter 13: Banks as a System — Regulation and Deregulation
Core idea
Banks are not islands — they are nodes in a network. They lend to each other overnight in the federal funds market to plug short-term reserve gaps. They share customer panic when one of them looks shaky, because depositors at the next bank wonder if they should be next in line. And they live under a regulatory regime that exists precisely because the network amplifies both their usefulness and their failures. The 160-year pendulum of US banking — National Bank Act of 1863, Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Glass-Steagall, FDIC, the S&L crisis, Glass-Steagall’s repeal, the 2008 collapse, Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank’s partial rollback, the 2023 collapses of SVB, Signature, and First Republic — is the story of regulators trying to keep up with a system that keeps finding new ways to fail.
The two structural features that drive everything else are: interconnection (every bank’s balance sheet partly depends on other banks) and fractional reserves (no bank can pay all its depositors at once). Together they mean confidence is the load-bearing wall. When confidence cracks, the rest follows fast.
Authors’ framing: Banks borrow from each other to manage daily liquidity. They run on confidence. They fail when confidence fails. Regulation exists because the consequences of failure aren’t contained to the failing bank — they spread.
Why it matters
It demystifies the federal funds rate
The Fed’s most-watched policy lever — the federal funds target rate — is literally the rate banks charge each other for overnight reserve loans. When you understand the interbank lending market, “the Fed raised rates” stops being mysterious. The Fed sets a target for the price of overnight money between banks, and that price is the foundation under every other interest rate in the economy (chapter 11).
It explains why bank runs are so destructive
A single bank failure used to be contained. In a connected, fractional-reserve system, the failure becomes a signal: if Bank A failed, maybe Bank B is next. Depositors at Bank B race to withdraw. The race makes the failure happen. This is the logic behind every panic from 1907 to 2023 — and the logic behind every modern defense (deposit insurance, the lender-of-last-resort role of the central bank, stress tests).
It puts the deregulation-then-crisis pattern in context
The 1980s S&L crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, and the 2023 regional bank failures all followed the same script: deregulation → riskier behavior → a precipitating shock → systemic stress → public bailout → reregulation. Knowing the pattern lets you read political fights over bank rules with sharper eyes — the lobbying for looser rules tends to peak right before the next crisis.
Key takeaways
Key takeaways
- Banks lend reserves to each other overnight in the federal funds market. The Fed sets a target rate (the fed funds rate) for this lending — the foundational interest rate of the US economy.
- Because banks hold only a fraction of deposits as reserves, no bank can satisfy all its depositors at once. A bank run happens when too many depositors demand their balances simultaneously.
- Bank runs are usually triggered by fear — sometimes well-founded, sometimes purely rumor. Once a line forms at the door, the panic becomes self-fulfilling.
- Runs can be contagious. The 2023 failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic occurred within weeks of each other, each panic spreading via social media to the next bank.
- Major US banking regulation has been built in response to crises: the National Bank Act of 1863, Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (after the 1907 panic), FDIC (1933, after the Depression), Dodd-Frank (2010, after the 2008 crisis).
- FDIC insures customer deposits up to $250,000 per customer per bank. This single backstop prevents most retail-depositor runs by making the run unnecessary.
- Deregulation cycles tend to precede crises. Glass-Steagall's repeal in 1999 preceded the 2008 crisis; the 2018 Dodd-Frank rollback (raising the strict-rules threshold from $50B to $250B in assets) preceded the 2023 mid-bank failures.
- Regulators face an enduring dilemma: rules tight enough to prevent failure constrain the lending that drives the economy; rules loose enough to maximize lending make failures inevitable.
Mental model — how one bank borrows from another
Read it as: A customer withdrawal pushes Acme below its required reserves. Roadrunner has excess reserves earning almost nothing parked at the Fed. They lend overnight at the fed funds rate — Acme avoids a regulatory penalty, Roadrunner earns better-than-Fed interest. Multiply by every bank in the country every day and you get the federal funds market.
Mental model — anatomy of a bank run
Read it as: Every bank run follows this shape. The green off-ramp depends on the bank being able to borrow from other banks or from the Fed. When the interbank market itself freezes (because every bank suspects every other bank), the green path closes and the red path opens — and the failure becomes the next bank’s trigger.
Mental model — the regulation pendulum
Read it as: Crisis tightens; calm loosens. Every tightening is the answer to the previous crisis; every loosening creates the conditions for the next one. The 2018 rollback exempting “small” banks ($50B–$250B in assets) from the strictest Dodd-Frank rules ran straight into the 2023 failures of SVB, Signature, and First Republic — all of which sat in exactly the exempted band.
Practical application
Diagnose a banking-news story
Steps for evaluating a bank account’s safety
-
Confirm the bank is FDIC-insured. Almost all US commercial banks are. Credit unions get equivalent NCUA coverage.
-
Stay under the $250,000 limit per depositor per bank per ownership category. Two accounts at the same bank in the same name share one $250K cap.
-
Spread funds across multiple banks if you genuinely have more than $250,000 in cash. The insurance limit is per institution.
-
For business accounts, look into IntraFi (formerly CDARS) services that automatically split your deposit across many FDIC-insured banks to keep every dollar under the cap.
-
Don’t try to outguess solvency. Reading bank balance sheets well enough to predict a failure is harder than it looks — that’s what FDIC insurance is for. Use the insurance limits and stop trying to be a bank analyst.
Example: a stylized version of the 2023 SVB failure
A regional bank serves a concentrated industry (tech startups). It takes in a lot of deposits during a boom — far more than it can lend out locally. So it parks the excess in long-duration Treasury bonds, which is conservative on paper.
Then two things happen at once:
-
Interest rates rise sharply. The market value of the bank’s long-duration bonds falls — not because anyone defaulted, but because new bonds yield more. Unrealized losses pile up on the bond portfolio.
-
The startup ecosystem cools. Customers start drawing down deposits to fund operations. The bank has to sell some of those bonds to meet withdrawals — turning unrealized losses into realized ones.
The combination causes the bank to announce a large securities loss. Within hours, on group chats and Twitter, sophisticated depositors with balances far above the $250K FDIC limit do the math: if the loss makes the bank insolvent, only the first $250K of my $20M is safe. So they wire their money out — and tell their networks to do the same. By the next morning, $40 billion has left the building and the bank cannot meet withdrawal demands. Regulators close it within 48 hours.
What broke? Three things stacked: a concentrated depositor base (so contagion within the cluster was fast), a portfolio that lost value when rates rose (a risk the bank had not adequately hedged), and a regulatory exemption (under the 2018 rollback, this bank was not subject to the strictest stress tests). Each could have been survivable alone. Together they produced a textbook 21st-century bank run — one in which the line forming wasn’t at the door, but in everyone’s group chats.
Caveats
Related lessons
Jump to…
Type to filter; press Enter to open